[Physics] Viscosity .. Explanation please

[mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk]

James,

Thanks for your comments. I think I have addressed some in my response 
to Paul, sent just now. I also included a paper that explains more - 
including the dynamics of meons in loops. I am currently modelling 
loop-loop interactions and have effectively produced what is called the 
colour force (but technically the need for three-fold symmetry in stacks 
is due to the asymmetry of the quark loops, not any separate force), the 
strong force with stable seprations between loops and the 
electromagnetic force beyond. The mass of loops is effectively their 
rotational rate and its effect on the background - a circular raft 
deflecting space-time is a good analogy. So there is no need for a Higgs 
to enable mass, although loop combinations that could form Higgs stacks 
are fine.

On one specific point - light escaping a black hole. A cosmologial black 
hole is actually a chain star where the loops entering are broken back 
into chains by the differential effect of gravity which stretches then 
breaks them. Inside the black hole the chains continully form, break, 
reform until a loop and anti-loop form a photon at sufficiently large 
rotational rate and perpendicular to the hole's surface so that the 
photon can escape but lose most of their enegy doing so. Since the meons 
which are the building locks for the chains and loops are far more dense 
than any cosmological black hole, they can not be broken and so physics 
does not break down inside a black hole.

Cheers
Mike





On 2020-05-04 03:28, James Rose wrote:
> To all participants in this topic 'Viscosity' (of spacetime),
> 
> This is the very first venue I have read of such a property of ... I
> am assuming: 'spacetime' .. considered.
> 
> Though in the brief depiction by Mike Lawrence, apparently it is a
> behavioral effect .. (on -all- particles of matter?) .. coming out of
> some new 'particles' or 'particle pairs' .. and certain
> action~association properties -of- those proposed particles.
> 
> Is that an accurate description of the entities -and- their
> interactions -and- their secondary effects on -other- particles?
> 
> Why (what internal property/ies of these proposed entities) do they
> behave in such ways:  de-merge and then re-merge?
> Why can they not only pair-orient affective interactions .. but -also-
>  .. -else- orient with neighboring pairs in all n-dimensional
> proximities around them? ... collectively?
> 
> Do you imagine them similar to the Higgs -field-?   As a collective
> 'friction space'?
> What controls or induces the strength or rate of 'viscousness'?   Can
> viscosity .. 'vary'?   If so .. what internal properties of the
> 'zerons' or 'loops' .. produce the effects you are looking to justify?
> 
> I have been looking into a similar general-property of -all- fields,
> for quite some time now.. Your depiction and version strikes a chord
> with me -- because certain actions and behaviors in the fundamental
> scales of existence have not been satisfyingly modeled or collectively
> coordinated yet -- and even if my model does not directly map or mesh
> with your particular model --  I am really intrigued and interested in
> understanding what-how-why .. you came to yours.
> 
> To be open and candid .. I have taken a different tack to justify
> observations .. such as light bending near masses ; ..and even to
> reason-through the strange (avoided to address) phenomena of:  in the
> territory -outside- the event horizon of a blackhole ... if 'not even
> light escapes' ... then .. and this is how I started describing the
> problem 30 years ago .. "How is it that gravity capriciously and
> unfetteredly exists out beyond the event-horizon?   If gravity were
> made of particlea, shouldn't it/they be as conditionally affected and
> constrained .. as -all- other "particles" in the universe??"   ----
> In other words, maybe, as useful and powerful as particulate models in
> math are for describing the -behaviors- of ... masses in "fields" ..
> is it possible that "forces fields" might be something else?
> Something 'continua' in nature rather than 'quanta' in nature?   Where
> the gradients of varying intensities of forces .. is -not- mapped ..
> 1:1 with hypothesized 'force carrier particles' .."densities" .. but
> some -other- gradient-able architecture of ... spacetime and
> associated -collections- of spacetime?
> 
> AND .. are we possibly missing an important additional interpretation
> of the mathematics for these things ..which we already have?
> 
> What I proposed in the early 1990's was a fresh
> analysis-interpretation of the essential Einstein equation for
> mass~energy.
> Hard-wired conventional interpretation of the mass~energy correlation
> of E=mc^2 .. holds that the speed of light, 'c' .. squared value .. is
> strictly the "how much" ...'conversion' ... quantities~measures are.
> All well and good.  -Not- disputed.
> 
> But that equation informs us of -something else- that is critically
> important!   (and not even Einstein recognized it!).
> 
> It has to to with 'time'.  His companion equations gave us three
> "orthogonal" spatial -dimensions- and an added extra-orthogonal
> 'temporal' dimension.   Which conventional matrices~domains math gave
> us Euclidian and Reimannian .. Pythagorean geometry relations:
> f(k)^2 = x^2 + y^2 + x^2 - t^2  .. et al.   [x,y,z,t] being the
> traditional Four Dimensions of modern non-QM physics .. (setting aside
> the supersymmetry and M-brane and string models for a moment .. with
> all sorts of extra n-number of  'compacted dimensions' proposed).
> 
> If we are to be -consistent- in mathematical -definitions- .. and in
> particular .. the symbols~notation 'definition' of:
> 
>    "A whole positive integer .. in the exponent location .. is
> tantamount to the 'dimensions' of  the variable or number to which the
> exponent is associated."     [parenthetically .. this definition is
> adequate and interesting, but it undervalues the full qualia of what
> exponent location 'numbers' may or may not -fully- be capable of
> expressing, and the forms the exponents take or represent].
> 
> For right now though ..  (thanks for sticking with this long email
> ..it will be worth it ...) ...
> 
> Gravity .. in all of science and physics .. is never really
> 'explained'.  The several versions of "relativity" .. and even EM and
> strong and weak forces, and quark interactions .. are never
> 'explained'.  What has been established are mathematical mappings of
> the secondary ... -produced- ... behaviors that we observe.   The
> 'behaviors' are tracked and made predictable.
> 
> "Why(?)" -fields- .. do what they do .. has yet to be proposed.
> !!!!!
> 
> Now, if the basics interpretation~definition of 'exponent'  ... holds
> .. then explicitly and -exactly- the Einstein mass~energy conversion
> equation tells us that 'c' is not just a measured 'speed' .. it is a
> "time factor" ... aka .. time -dimension-. .. such that 'c^2' is
> properly interpreted -as- .... TWO ORTHOGONAL TEMPORAL 'DIMENSIONS'.
> In companion conversion terms .. this indicates that -gravity- .. or
> more accurately .. the observed and measured ... -produced- forces of
> gravitational -fields- ... are effectively the "felt cross product
> -interactions-" of -two- ... -orthogonal- ... temporal "dimensions".
> From which interpretation .. it is incumbent to examine and explore ..
> "What are the aspects of 'interacting dimensions' such that real
> -forces- and pressure phenomena (continua) -gradients- are produced as
> a result of any dimensional interactions~correlations?"
> 
> This model -also- produces 'differential
> pressures~gradients~viscosities' .. across the domains where present.
>  "Forces fields" are potentially -not- sourced from particles (as
> 'carriers' of an extra property labelled 'force') .. but are intrinsic
> products of "dimensions interacting".  (JNRose (c) 1992,1995)
> 
> As it turns out .. the central relations can be isomorphically
> applied-to and found-in other phenomena and complexities that grow out
> of and develop from fundamental physics interactions conventions and
> models.  Hierarchies of complexity (and emergence) produce different
> combinants and forms and presentations, but very nicely, the drivers
> and action potentials born from the essential formation of the
> universe  ... "dimensions before energy before mass" .. can be
> identified on all scales and orders of magnitude. AND .. it turns out
> .. that a similar review and interpretation of Heisenberg's
> Uncertainty Principle ..harbors within it .. the specifications for
> QM~Relativity conversion mapping.  [with one minor revision in
> equation .. which -also- illuminates 'dimensions'  as present ; the
> natural association of QM measures with relativity measures ..and how
> to navigate and value~map back and forth.  The key is recognizing
> within the HUP the presence of polar coordinates values]
> 
> James (Jamie) Rose
> 
> ps.
> 
> This is an 'information' email only. I care not who agrees with me or
> disagrees with me or challenges the notions you just read.    I
> provided it only as a courtesy of information.
> 
> I -DO- care about Mike's proposal of 'viscosity' as a dynamics
> phenomena and a property of fundamental systemic behavings. I -would-
> like to know more details of it, along the lines of the considerations
> you read expressed above.
> 
>                            With my respect to all on this list,   jnr
> 
> ========
> 
>  On Sunday, May 3, 2020, 9:16:02 AM PDT, Tom Hollings
> <carmam at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> Yes I agree with all that (I think) Mike. A couple of points - the
> viscosity accounts for the red shift with distance (I think Halton Arp
> was villified for equating (some) redshift with distance. I like what
> you say about the bending of light around the sun (and other large
> objects) being attributable to the denser viscosity, and not being
> directly caused by gravity. See :-
> http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings06.htm
> 
> Tom.
> 
>> On 03 May 2020 at 13:46 mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Tom,
>> 
>> Yes, very much so. I have not gone into detail in the emails here
>> because it can put people off. In the 'background' as I call it, I
>> include not just the original merged pairs of particle and
>> anti-particle, but also the short stack of contra-rotating loop and
>> anti-loop. This latter, which I call as zeron, is the basis of all
> 'pair
>> creation' events. When a particle hits such a zeron (typically
> electron
>> and positron) with the correct energy, it breaks the zeron into its
>> separate electron and positron loops, which then try to recombine.
> The
>> zerons exist at every point in space at every integer Planck radius.
> 
>> They are the source of the pressure that drives plates together when
> the
>> plates do not allow the smaller ones to remain between them, giving
> a
>> net lack of pressure - the Casimir effect. They are also the source
> of
>> zero point energy since each loop has an energy of 1/2 hw, where w
> is
>> the frequency/size of the loop.
>> 
>> In addition to the background are all the separate particles. So the
> 
>> masses of planets, atoms, photons etc. This is the local
> environment.
>> Where there are lots of masses, the local environment is denser than
> 
>> where there are fewer masses.
>> 
>> What this means is that the viscosity at any point will depend on
> how
>> much there is of the background and how much of the local
> environment.
>> In 'empty' space there will be the same viscosity on average as, for
> 
>> example, a photon travels across a volume. So the photon will
> experience
>> a loss of energy in overcoming the viscosity as it moves that is
>> proportional to the distance it has travelled (very nearly). As the
>> photon gets close to a denser local environment, it will have a
> lower
>> number for its velocity (since there is more viscosity present), but
> 
>> that number will still be the local light speed. It will also be
> bent in
>> its travels, for instance past the Sun, towards the greater density
>> volume because of the differential effect of the viscosity density
>> across each loop - which is maybe the source of gravity.
>> 
>> So you are right that the viscosity will be different in different
>> circumstances.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Mike
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 2020-05-02 17:40, Tom Hollings wrote:
>> > Mike, as space is not empty, but full of gas at varying
> temperatures
>> > and densities, and moving in differing directions, would that not
>> > cause the viscosity to vary?
>> > Tom Hollings
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> On 02 May 2020 at 15:47 mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Arend,
>> >>
>> >> In my earlier response I forgot to mention that E and (shear)
> vicosity
>> >> both have the same dimensions, being Y^9. So it could be
> considered
>> >> that
>> >> mechanically an electric field is like having viscosity through
> which
>> >> waves must travel. Equally, from my point of view, adjusting
> Maxwell
>> >> to
>> >> include the effects of background viscosity would be equivalent
> to
>> >> simply adjusting the value of E in any equation - although it
> could
>> >> equally well be argued that the value of E already contains the
>> >> viscosity effect because we have not yet recognised it.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers
>> >> Mike
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 2020-04-30 16:30, Arend Lammertink wrote:
>> >> > Hi Mike,
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 6:08 PM <mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The paper shows that SI units actually hide that the strength
> of mass
>> >> >> and charge fields are the same at the fundamental level.
>> >> >
>> >> > That's very interesting, because I believe the electric field
> is one
>> >> > and the same as the field causing the gravitational force (as
>> >> > experienced on the surface of a planetary body) via the
> pushing/shadow
>> >> > gravity principle Paul proposed.  Will take a look at your
> paper.
>> >> >
>> >> > Greetz,
>> >> >
>> >> > Arend.
>> >>
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics